Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school?

With all due respect. The website you listed:http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.htmlalso has this quote: Therefore they are explicitly not endorsing any kind of Haekel type ideas. Therefore this is not an example of evolutionist misrepresentation.The fact is that we do go through very similar stages of embryonic development to our nearest relatives. We should expect that if evolution is true, more distantly related species go through more different embryonic development and more closely related species go through more similar embryonic development. This is exactly what we see.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

It is actually more of a misrepresentation. If they had not known the drawings were faked, one could say they were ignorant, but here they acknowledge the drawings were faked, but then try to use the same drawings and get away with it by stating they are not backing the same ideas!Moreover, they don't even admit that their drawings are faked, but say they are "based on Haeckel's drawings." So they know the drawings are faked, but try to get away with using them by admitting the originals were faked (sort of bypassing the fact thier drawings are nearly identical), and by stating that they are advancing a different idea.This shows what I have noticed for a long time, that evolutionists in general, at least those advancing the topic to the public, are loathe to give up on data, even if fake, when it "works" to convince people.The bottom line is the drawings they used are faked, and thus convey a false impression.Also, in terms of the evidence, I think Haeckel's ideas would have merit had universal common descent occurred. Universal common descent predicted a linear adding on of traits, and thus according to Haeckel predicted that later developed species would pass through the same stages.But the prediction did not hold true.Unfortunately, rather than own up to the significance of this failed prediction of evolutionary theory, evolutionists maintained a scaled-down version of the same, and used the same faked drawings to advance the idea for over 100 years.That's the facts.

I addressed your point.You claim that since the argument is true, and not Haeckel's argument, it is OK to use his faked drawings to argue the true point.You illustrate exactly the type of delusional thinking I am talking about, which has no place in a proper scientific discussion.The use of faked evidence for any argument should never be acceptable.It is though acceptable to you because you rationalize it much in the same way certain religious fanatics and cultists rationalize wrong-doing "for the cause."You don't see it, but you are essentially arguing the ends justifies the means, and I am arguing that in science, the means leads to the ends, and if the means is corrupt, then so is the end conclusion in alll likelihood.That's why I don't come out and argue and present a grand theory, but choose to look at all the evidence, each piece at a time, and try not to let foregone conclusions affect my assessment of the evidence. I suggest you do the same.This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 05:43 PM

Well, the details that Haekel was propounding were wrong. But the prediction from common descent did hold true.I'd like from you to know just what is wrong with the drawings and just what prediction is not true.

I would challenge that assertion.First, Haeckel in my opinion had a good point. He did not think we should expect more different embryonic development for more different species, but that we would repeat the earlier forms' development. His prediction was wrong, but his logic that universal common descent predicted that has merit.Secondly, how is your prediction any different than saying creatures that resemble each other fully developed probably share some resemblance at the embryonic stage? Basically, this is not really evidence for universal common descent because there is no real predictive element here, and universal common descent does not exclusively explain this.The fact that a pig is somewhat similar to a human in anatomy, for example, is a real fact, but it is nothing more than an observation. To say evolution predicts this observation is somewhat deceptive, especially since evolutionary theory for many predicted something different.But this goes to the heart of much of evolutionary dogma. Evolutionists insist that similarities are evidence for universal common descent, and cannot support anything else. This is asserted dogmatically over and over again.Nevertheless, we see that even with the camp of ToE, great degrees of similarities are produced via convergent evolution, according to evolutionists, and thus similarities as detailed as the 3 ear bones may not actually be evidence for common descent, but convergent evolution theoritically.Furthermore, common authorship could just as easily be what creates the similarities as universal common descent.Imo, evolutionists refuse to acknowledge other commonalities that could play a role in producing similarities.

Sorry friend: They explicitly state that they are not real. They are just used as examples to go along with the text. The fact is that differences in the embryonic development of vertebrates follow the same struture we would expect from common decent. This is a non-negotiably fact. This is what we observe.Haeckel was wrong for proposing that a human embryo ever became a fish during its development. That is not what that site is saying; neither in the text nor by its use of that image.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

Well Ned, just because you'd like to know something does not entitle you to divert the conversation, now does it?The fact is the drawings are admittedly faked. You admitted that on the other thread and admitted it was wrong to use them.Are you changing your mind on that?As far as what was wrong with them, I included links detailing that, but since my point is made regardless of what was wrong with them, I see no point in diverting the conversation down that path.In terms of predictions, the same holds true. Haeckel's predictions did not hold true. Because it does shed light on my point, I will include a quote on that to help illustrate how his ideas were wrong, and why he felt evolutionary theory predicted that he would be correct. http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon4haeckel.htmlThe reduction from passing through the same stages to "common features" imo is a significant area where predictions of universal common descent failed.In fact, I consider the following statement from the same web-site to be essentially a leap of faith on the part of evolutionists. The leap to make developmental features that develop into entirely different organs "homologous" is unfounded, imo, as is the claim of "the patterns of bones in adult limbs."First, such similarities according to evolutionists do evolve independently and thus show common descent is not necessary to explain these similarities.Secondly, similarities could just be the result of a common design embedded by a common Creator. The idea that these similarities are strong evidence, or central evidence, for evolution just illustrates how weak the evidence for universal common descent actually is.This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 06:04 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 06:05 PM

It is not just the similarity of embryonic development that is significant but rather the differences. If common decent is true, we would expect there to be fewer differences in embryonic development between more related species. This should also match well against the data we get from morphology, genetics, and stratigraphy. There is no reason for these to correlate if common decent is not true. What we get are very good correlations and thus common decent gains in evidence.You can't turn around and say common decent is fasified because Haeckles ideas were wrong. The incorrect idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny does not eliminate the similarities that DO exist in the embryonic development of related species.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

You are misrepresenting my point (what a surprise).My point is that although it was wrong it had little practical effect. You have not shown that that was wrong or challenged my reasoning on that point. Remeber that the drawings are not that bad - only distorted to support views that aren't even taught.And I am CERTAINLY not arguing that the ends justify the means. That's a pure fabrication on your part. I never invoked the ends as a justification at all. My point is more along the lines of "no harm, no foul".So far as I can tell your behaviour is worse than anything you've actually made a case for. So you're in no position to talk about "corrupt means".And don't tell me you are trying to examine the evidence. What is the point of your little smear camapaign other than to avoid dealing with the evidence ?

quote:

---

It is actually more of a misrepresentation. If they had not knownthe drawings were faked, one could say they were ignorant, but here they acknowledge the drawings were faked, but then try touse the same drawings and get away with it by stating they are not backing the same ideas!

---

Yet another lie. They DON'T use the same drawings and you know that. They say that their drawings are BASED ON Haeckel's but they give no reason to suppose that their drawings contain the same inaccuracies.

You mean after the fact, don't you. Because a great many people expected common descent to show the biogenetic law.Your claim they follow the same structure expected from universal common descent really does not hold any water since evolutionists just changed their expectations after many held to a different prediction.But here, I'll give you something that could be evidence for common descent, not conclusive evidence, but at least leaning that direction. If universal common descent is true, then embryos from species closer in relatedness but not closer in adult anatomy should be closer in embryonic development.In other words, let's say 2 species look more similar due to convergent evolution, but they are not. You should be able to compare the embryos with the species that look different but are considered closer genetically, and they should be much more similar than the embryos that are farther apart.Now, to see if this prediction holds true, we should look at a wide group, and compare them, or see if anyone has done that.Of course, one could argue that similarity in convergent evolution also produces similarity in the enbryos, and if you accept that, then you have to discount the similarities in the embryos as necessarily showing common descent.Or, you could also argue that genetic similarity does not show genetic relatedness, but let's don't go there for now since that raises the issue of creationism probably.

PaulK, look at the drawings. The only differences I can see are the fact the web-site adds color to the drawings.

quote:

---

First, Haeckel in my opinion had a good point. He did not think we should expect more different embryonic development for more different species, but that we would repeat the earlier forms' development. His prediction was wrong, but his logic that universal common descent predicted that has merit.

---

Well since it makes sense to you can you explain why embryonic development would pass through the ADULT stages of ancestral organisms ? That IS Haeckel's idea

I know you don't see this, but you are saying the end "no harm" justifies the fabrication, hence "no foul."That's not a lie. I am showing you the truth.What you fail to realize is you believe there is no harm done because you believe they are telling the truth. You think, well, the "drawings are not that bad", but they are that bad. They were created to give a false impression by overstating the similarities, and imo, that is bad all on it's own.if you think the evolutionist point here is bunk anyway, as I do, then you doubly think a "foul" has been done. The use of such images is taking away the ability of the generally less knowledgeable person presented with that evidence to objectively consider of the evidence really says what you say it does.Personally, I don't think the level of embryonic similarities indicates common descent at all. I am not saying it is evidence necessarily against common descent, but it certainly is not really strong evidence for it. I would characterize what I have seen thus far as fairly neutral.

Unless you can identify actual errors, you haven't got a real case. I see no reaon to assume that they would deliberately retain errors.